On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:30:09PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
> implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
> 'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for more info).
>
> The TPM Proxy device interacts with a TPM Resource Manager, a host
> device capable of multiplexing the host TPM with multiple processes.
> This allows multiple guests to access some TPM features at the
> same time. Note that this mode of operation does not provide
> full TPM features to be available for the guest - for that case
> the guest still needs to assign a vTPM device (tpm-spapr for
> PPC64 guests). Although redundant, there is currently no technical
> limitation for a guest to assign both a vTPM and a TPM Proxy at the
> same time.
>
> This patch adds documentation and schema for the new TPM Proxy device.
> An example of a TPM Proxy device connected to a TPM Resource Manager
> '/dev/tpmrm0' will look like this:
>
> <tpmproxy model='spapr-tpm-proxy'>
> <device path='/dev/tpmrm0'/>
> </tpmproxy>
We already have:
<backend type='passthrough'>
<device path='/dev/tpm0'/>
</backend>
Now what is the difference between this tpm-proxy device using /dev/tpmrm0
and having the existing passthrough device use /dev/tpmrm0? Is there any
useful filtering going on by the tpm-proxy device? If not, why not use
passthrough with /dev/tpmrm0?
It's a different guest side interface, the H_TPM_COMM hypercall
instead of the other PAPR TPM interface. To which "why?" is a very
good question, but it's there now, so there's not much we can do about
it.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson